The Collier County Sheriff's Office is investigating the death of a man after deputies tried to arrest him this morning.

Muszack Nazaire, 24, of Immokalee was driving on a suspended license, fled law enforcement authorities and was Tasered by deputies, according to Nazaire's father, who was at the scene Tuesday.

The Sheriff's Office gave this account:

The man who died was spotted driving in a vehicle, along with two other men, around 4:30 a.m., after sheriff’s dispatchers received a call about an individual driving without a license in East Naples.

Deputies tried to stop the vehicle at Estey and San Remo avenues, but the driver refused to stop and headed into Golden Gate. After a brief pursuit, the driver drove through the backyard of a residence and into a canal on 55th Terrace Southwest. He drove the car partially into the water. He then fled into the canal and swam away. The two passengers were taken out of the car by deputies.

The man who fled eventually returned to shore, where he was confronted by deputies.

"Deputies then attempted to arrest the man and during the course of the attempt, it is believed that a Taser was deployed,'' the Sheriff's Office said in a news release. "While making the arrest, the man experienced a medical emergency. Deputies and EMS attempted to resuscitate him, but were unsuccessful.''

I think this stems from the fact that the press release was made very soon after the incident and not all facts had been confirmed. The officer's involved have the same constitutional rights as anyone else and cannot be compelled to make a statement at the scene of an in custody death if that statement might be inaccurate due to the distortions associated with the stress of the recent incident. "Inaccurate" statements are immediately labeled as lies and cover-ups by the media, attorneys (criminal and civil) and certain interest groups.

While "may have been deployed" seems unnecessarily vague and benign, it was the most accurate thing the PIO could say at the time.

Quote:Hmmmm.....if it was a taser, the guy probably had some kind of heart condition for him to die from it.

More than 200 killings have been carried out with taser weapons. Either all 200 victims had heart conditions or this guy died of old age.

Hmmm.

Gotta hand it to them though... the PR guy that thought up the term "in-custody death" is a genius of the first order. "Oops... sorry! He just fell over and died on us. He been alive for 24 years but he chose today to take the dive... what are the odds?"

I believe we've been through this before. The number of deaths from Tasers are pretty low in comparison to their total use. Houston, TX alone logged more than 1000 taser uses between 2003-2004. And a significant amount of the deaths that DID occur in "taser-related" incidents occured while the defendants were on drugs such as PCP or cocaine.

Quote:Hmmmm.....if it was a taser, the guy probably had some kind of heart condition for him to die from it.

More than 200 killings have been carried out with taser weapons. Either all 200 victims had heart conditions or this guy died of old age.

Hmmm.

Gotta hand it to them though... the PR guy that thought up the term "in-custody death" is a genius of the first order. "Oops... sorry! He just fell over and died on us. He been alive for 24 years but he chose today to take the dive... what are the odds?"

"In custody death" is so much nicer. Kinda like dropping your keys.

"But there should be a moratorium on the use of tasers until they are proven safe to use against fleeing violent felons who have ingested lethal amounts of coke combined with heart disease and asthma."

I cover cops - we get that crap all the time. They want the chance to fully investigate everything when it involves an officer, so generally they'll refuse to be specific on ANYTHING until the investigation is completed a month or two down the road.

It's mainly for legal reasons - this guy died - they're probably gonna get sued. If they come out and say a taser was fired, and then retract that later, it'll be a hit on their credibility in court, so they have to be absurdly careful in what they say.

"Were you lying then, or are you lying now?" comes to mind. Been on the receiving end of that one several times and even if I knew it was all a game, it still made me want to punch someone in the face.

It is a smart thing to do to give out only the information that is absolutely confirmed. Any inaccuracy, well intended or not, will be punished heavily in the public opinion via the media.

My PD has just issued tazers to us. We are one of the last PDs in my county to get them. During training we too were advised that most deaths have happened when the suspect is on some type of narcotics and in poor cardio vascular health.

I currently work resource at a high school (not real big maybe 1800 kids), have not had to taze anyone yet. Had to seek compliance a few times. One thing that is interesting is that tazers are so well known now that when I did seek compliance they instantly did what I asked becuz they already seemed familiar with what a tazer was and what it could/would do....

I'm not sure if your question is sarcastic or not, but I'll risk a genuine answer.

You obviously posted that particular case because police were the alleged victims. That will make it difficult for you to understand my POV.

If the two alleged killers had already initiated actual, authentic acts of violence against the life or property of another, then Clark and Shelton were not initiating violence, they were responding to it. Their actions were morally justified and I am sorry that they were killed while trying to do what was right. I am equally sorry whether they were cops or not; their officer status is irrelevant.

If the two alleged killers had not initiated acts of violence against another, then Clark and Shelton were in fact the aggressors and the alleged "killers" were responding to this violence rather than initiating it. In that case, Clark and Shelton were killed as an act of self defense and have no sympathy coming. Again, whether they are officers or not is irrelevant. I oppose the initiation of violence. Initiating violence does not become morally acceptable when one carries a badge.

If your question was sarcastic I apologize for boring you. If it was legitimate, your (presumed) occupation as a government agent will likely prevent you from understanding my point of view, and will certainly make it impossible for you to accept. But I tried.

Quote:I currently work resource at a high school (not real big maybe 1800 kids), have not had to taze anyone

You will never "have to" taze anyone. You have to breath. You have to have water. You have to have a heartbeat. You do not "have to" taze anyone.

You may someday CHOOSE to taze someone, but you will never "have" to. And when you do choose to assault someone with a taser it may be a good choice or it may be a bad choice... but it will be a choice.

There are times when a LEO "has" to use force to do their job, the only "choice" is the manner that this force is applied.

Many people not in law enforcement do not understand, or are not aware, of this, but it is a valid statement.

Reasonably, the least amount of force that can be applied to accomplish the task should be used. THAT is the choice. BUT, the force still has to be applied.

For instance, in the state of Florida, if I become aware of someone that has a warrant (whether via a traffic stop, a standard notification from Warrants Division, or just a routine vehicle license plate check) and let's ay the warrant is for a criminal charge (domestic violence battery, assault, agg/battery, etc) I HAVE to effect an arrest. I have no CHOICE in the matter. The state of Florida mandates that I make the arrest, or I can be criminally charged, lose my job, sued via civil action.

If that person resists arrest, I HAVE to use force, not only to effect an arrest, but to protect myself...or even the citizens (because allowing a person with a dangerous warrant to stay free endangers others).

The choice is the amount of force I use. Again, reasonably, I should use the least amount needed to accomplish said arrest.

Do some police officers abuse the choice of how much force they can use? unfortunately, yes they do.

You also wrote, "when you do choose to assault someone with a tazer...."

I am given certain "rights" as a police officer that are given to me from the state of FLorida...and one of those "rights" is to use FORCE in certain situations.

As long as I follow those guidlines (statutory requirements actually), I am not "assualting" anyone (after all that is a crime); I am simply using "force" to effect an arrest.

...and you may choose to be on one side of the fence or the other. You can be the Law Enforcer or the Law Breaker, the Protector or the Predator. And should you choose to sanctimoniously walk the middle, choosing to be "the critic", then you have that right as well.

I think we know what Roosevelt said about the critic.

Life is about choices and we see you have made yours. If you ever need help, I'm sure there will be someone there in a uniform to give it to you.

"It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.”

Quote:For instance, in the state of Florida, if I become aware of someone that has a warrant (whether via a traffic stop, a standard notification from Warrants Division, or just a routine vehicle license plate check) and let's ay the warrant is for a criminal charge (domestic violence battery, assault, agg/battery, etc) I HAVE to effect an arrest. I have no CHOICE in the matter.

That is a false statement.

You have the ability to simply walk away; it is your choice. Obviously, this could cost you your job or your next promotion but it remains your duty nonetheless.

Greater still is your duty to do what is right regardless of what any law or bureaucrat says. If the state orders you to assault someone who has not harmed the life or property of another, then integrity, decency and human morality demand that you disobey the order.

You never HAVE to arrest anyone. It is an act of the will.

Quote: The state of Florida mandates that I make the arrest, or I can be criminally charged, lose my job, sued via civil action.

Precisely. So you do have a choice. And this is exactly where great people in history step forward. They value their integrity and principles to such an extent that they are willing to sacrifice for what is right. Some have sacrificed their lives, some their families, and the lucky ones only lose their jobs. But this is the difference between great human beings and order takers. Each one has a choice.

(Of course I am speaking of the vast majority of arrests in which the victim has not harmed the life or property of another... I would agree entirely with you in cases where an actual, literal crime occurs and deprives someone of rightful property or life).

Quote:If that person resists arrest, I HAVE to use force

No, you do not. You can simply walk away. Their resistance is not an aggressive action against you. Resisting arrest is, by definition, a defensive action.

Quote:I am given certain "rights" as a police officer that are given to me from the state of FLorida...and one of those "rights" is to use FORCE in certain situations.

No human being could ever have a "right" to initiate force or violence against another. Rights are granted by God. The ability to use force without fear of retribution is granted by the state.

Never confuse to the two.

Quote:As long as I follow those guidlines (statutory requirements actually), I am not "assualting" anyone (after all that is a crime); I am simply using "force" to effect an arrest.

"Assault" is defined as "a sudden, violent attack; onslaught."

When you initiate force against someone to make an arrest, make no mistake, you are most certainly assaulting them. The government may not call it an assault, but the government does not have the ability to redefine the English language as it pleases. The fact that the state rarely holds it agents accountable for assault does not mean that an assault did not occur. It simply means that the one initiating the assault will not face retribution for their actions.

Is it possible that you've been a police officer so long that you are now allowing the state to define you, your actions and your language and your personal morality is taking second place to state orders? That is an honest question, not an insult.

I enjoyed reading your post and appreciate your refrain from ad hominal arguments. It is a pleasure to talk with someone who's first reaction is not a verbal gut shot. Have a nice evening.

Truly, you have a unique perspective. One that I think you have earned by possible acts that you should not have commited.

But as far as your personal assertions (towards me), ultimately they are wrong.

Someone such as yourself, may have a choice as to what they do or not do....

Someone such as myself, does not; I am sworn to uphold the law (whether others like it or not). When I swore an oath I commited myself to that path.

I obey the law and respect it, even as the law says someone such as yourself has the right to voice your opinion (no matter if your opinion is in the minority or it is grossly misguided), it also says I must commit certain acions during the course of my duties.

Or why else would I put my life on the line to prtoect someone such as yourself (not a personal dig-regarding your personal/political beliefs)....every single day of my life?

Someone who insults my sacrifices, my sense of honor, my sense of duty. Someone that insinuates that I am a criminal and/or suggests that I commit criminal acts.

Someone whom I suggest has not made (or tried to make society) a better place.

I have spent my life serving society. I have seen active duty service, reserve duty service, and nat'l guard duty service. I have been in combat units, medic units, and also (active duty) served as a firefighter. I have served during war (and feels that it does not make me special, simply makes me an American).

Individuals such as you have the right to voice their opinion (and that opinion should be given its due), however, in the end, such views are known for what they are.

My police service will end in 2.5 years and I will retire.

I will then seek another career in which I can serve society; not in law enforcement, military, or firefighter type pursuits (my body is showing wear and tear from the above listed type of occupations).

But, I will find a career in which I can make society (or try to anyway) a better place- because for me, that is not a choice, it's simply who and what I am.

Truly, you have a unique perspective. One that I think you have earned by possible acts that you should not have commited.

But as far as your personal assertions (towards me), ultimately they are wrong.

Someone such as yourself, may have a choice as to what they do or not do....

Someone such as myself, does not; I am sworn to uphold the law (whether others like it or not). When I swore an oath I commited myself to that path.

I obey the law and respect it, even as the law says someone such as yourself has the right to voice your opinion (no matter if your opinion is in the minority or it is grossly misguided), it also says I must commit certain acions during the course of my duties.

Or why else would I put my life on the line to prtoect someone such as yourself (not a personal dig-regarding your personal/political beliefs)....every single day of my life?

Someone who insults my sacrifices, my sense of honor, my sense of duty. Someone that insinuates that I am a criminal and/or suggests that I commit criminal acts.

Someone whom I suggest has not made (or tried to make society) a better place.

I have spent my life serving society. I have seen active duty service, reserve duty service, and nat'l guard duty service. I have been in combat units, medic units, and also (active duty) served as a firefighter. I have served during war (and feels that it does not make me special, simply makes me an American).

Individuals such as you have the right to voice their opinion (and that opinion should be given its due), however, in the end, such views are known for what they are.

My police service will end in 2.5 years and I will retire.

I will then seek another career in which I can serve society; not in law enforcement, military, or firefighter type pursuits (my body is showing wear and tear from the above listed type of occupations).

But, I will find a career in which I can make society (or try to anyway) a better place- because for me, that is not a choice, it's simply who and what I am.

K

Sopwith is right that we all have choices. My choice is to applaud your sentiment, your motives, and your actions.

I have never really understood the whole 'big brother' paranoia. Laws are created by representatives of the people, for the protection and betterment of the society that the people have created. Those who enforce those laws do so for the people, as agents of the society they represent. Police protect. Its the very core ethos of the job. Sometimes the safety of the many law abiding citizens comes at the expense of the safety of the violent criminal. Thats an ugly, but necessary, fact of life. Any thoughts to the contrary are student-bedsit idealism that demonstrate a lack of understanding of the real world.

I have seen police officers make mistakes. I have seen police officers break the very laws that are guaranteed to the citizens.

In short police officers are human (with all the frailties that go with that).

A person that commits a crime is guaranteed certain civil rights and they should be allowed those rights (even as I would want those same rights afforded to me, or, for a loved one).

Further, when an officer makes an arrest, that person that is arrested, should be treated with as much dignity, respect, and politeness as can be afforded to them (btw,I am NOT a staff officer-just a line officer). I feel it is not my job to demean others, even those that commit abhorent crimes, afterall, why create more hate in the world?

In a word professionalism.

I have had to strike a suspect that was battering me upside the head (I had a handheld radio in one hand and my mag in the other, so I used the maglight) and one second later have to give him CPR while calling for EMS to respond in emergency mode. I was not SORRY I struck him, but, it was nothing personal, it was business and since he was no longer in a position to be able to hurt me; and I not only wanted him to be able to stand trial for those 60 pieces of rock cocaine that he had thrown away while I was chasing him, but, I genuinely wanted him to be OKAY.

I can understand why police officers get a bad rap: TV, newspapers, movies, tv shows (the shield, lol), etc....most certainly some of it is true.

But, two things:

1. the thousands of police officers that are good honest citizens that contribute to society, you never hear about; they are at home with their families.

2. ultimately, we as police officers, have to "police" our own and to search out, find, and remove those that are unfit (for WHATEVER reason) to be counted in our ranks.

That's why in a way I can understand where Sop is coming from, I just think his rhetoric is somewhat extreme and biased possibly even gained from along the lines of what Cord suggested.

I wonder how many people with Sopwith's philosophy, when they find themselves being beaten up, scream at the nearest person or LEO, "Please, you have to help me", or do they scream, "Please, make a choice to help me".

_________________________
See how well I block your punches with my jaw!!

Quote:I wonder how many people with Sopwith's philosophy, when they find themselves being beaten up, scream at the nearest person or LEO, "Please, you have to help me", or do they scream, "Please, make a choice to help me".

Good point, Trev. Laws and repercussions are a way of life everywhere. You have to learn to accept it, change the laws, or suffer the consequences. It's really quite simple.

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Quote:I wonder how many people with Sopwith's philosophy, when they find themselves being beaten up, scream at the nearest person or LEO, "Please, you have to help me", or do they scream, "Please, make a choice to help me".

Neither. I would either draw my Walther P99 9mm Parabellum, use my Cold Steel Gunsite II lockblade and my Kali/Silat training, or rely on the seven belts I hold in martial arts.

Police clean up blood and make charges after the incident. There are exceptions, of course, but it is extraordinarily rare for a police officer to actually stop a violent act once it has been initiated, not because they are unwilling, but because violent acts generally last but a few seconds while police response time is generally measured in minutes. But that's really beside the point.

What you're really trying to suggest is that anyone who holds my views must be so pathetic that we are incapable or unwilling to act on our own behalf in an emergency. This, of course, is another personal insult tactic that does not address the topic in any meaningful way. It seems to be something of a pattern on this particular forum.

Quote:Laws and repercussions are a way of life everywhere. You have to learn to accept it

Or else... what?

Quote:change the laws

There are 435 members of the House, another 100 in the Senate. That's 535 legislators. I am able to vote for a grand total of three of them.

This means that if I were able to win every single election in which I am permitted to vote, all in the same year, and was able to persuade each of them to originate or co-sponsor legislation of my liking, that I would still be 265 votes short of changing even a single federal law.

The odds at the state level are only marginally better. The fantasy of the law being responsive to the needs of individual citizens is indeed nothing more than a fantasy.

Quote:or suffer the consequences.

Ah... now we get to the truth. What, precisely, are the consequences for the 49% who don't necessarily wish to submit to the will of the 51%? Please be specific.

Quote:LEOs and (volunteer) service personell are people who have made the choice to give up being able to have a choice for the (perceived) common good.

It's funny how the freedoms their choice give us allow people the freedom to say we have no freedoms.

Noble words with limited truth.

Go to an airport without your badge. Stay out of the way, do not block or inhibit anyone in their duties and remain peaceful.

Then try making a public declaration that the practices at the airport are unconstitutional, illegal and destroy our nation's freedom, and that bearing arms is a lawful right that cannot be taken away, and that general searches without warrant are a criminal offense under federal law and that the practices in the airport should be stopped by any means necessary immediately.

Keep at it, speaking peacefully yet openly to all bypassers throughout the airport.

Hey... let's up the ante here... do this and send me a video of you in the airport for at least 60 minutes. If you are not forced to stop during this 60 minutes, I will apologize, agree with your above statement entirely, and pay you $100 for your time.

Let's see how much freedom your LEO's and volunteer personnel really believe in.

Or else.....chaos? How do you think SOCIETY has come about? I'm honestly curious. Can you name one that does not have rules and consequences? Isn't it a given that the more complex the society, the more rules (thus consequences) it incurs?

Quote:There are 435 members of the House, another 100 in the Senate. That's 535 legislators. I am able to vote for a grand total of three of them.

This means that if I were able to win every single election in which I am permitted to vote, all in the same year, and was able to persuade each of them to originate or co-sponsor legislation of my liking, that I would still be 265 votes short of changing even a single federal law.

The odds at the state level are only marginally better. The fantasy of the law being responsive to the needs of individual citizens is indeed nothing more than a fantasy.

Sounds pretty lazy to me. Have you heard of petitions, or other citizen based political machinery? If you get enough like-minded folk to agree with you, you CAN change the law.

But don't cry if you don't try.

Quote:Ah... now we get to the truth. What, precisely, are the consequences for the 49% who don't necessarily wish to submit to the will of the 51%? Please be specific.

For every law? Oh jeez.....look it up yourself.

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

sopwith, you want me to spend the time to look up the entirety of the legal code as it applies to ME, let alone everyone. That's the entirety of the California legal code, Florida legal code, Colorado legal code, US legal code, the entire codex of Army Regulations, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. That applies to me. I'm not wasting my weekends, my short weeknights, and my deployment for the next several years. And it's not 51% of the public behind all these laws. It's democratically elected representatives of our republican government who is behind these laws. If you don't like the way things are, grassroots efforts are the solution to the problem, not whining on a web forum. Join an organization that represents and lobbies what you believe in, and help them make a difference.

I have no excuses either. When I was a young man I was also arrested.I was an irresponsible young man and acted like an irresponsible young man. I could have went either way and I was lucky that my parent's training asserted itself.When I was that age (under 20), however, I looked at things in a very different light. I was a different person.I just wonder what Sop's past life and experiences were/are and what his age is...might could explain a lot.The one thing I don't do is JUDGE anyone. We all have our past that we either learn from or don't learn from; I like to think most people learn from their pasts.

Quote:I wonder how many people with Sopwith's philosophy, when they find themselves being beaten up, scream at the nearest person or LEO, "Please, you have to help me", or do they scream, "Please, make a choice to help me".

Neither. I would either draw my Walther P99 9mm Parabellum, use my Cold Steel Gunsite II lockblade and my Kali/Silat training, or rely on the seven belts I hold in martial arts.

Although I found some of it extreme, you scored some points in my mind with the issues you'd so far raised in this debate. We are, after all, a free society and giving the police too much power is one sure way to limit that freedom. But the above quote did you in as far as I'm concerned. It appears you reserve the right to respond with the degree of force you deem necessary if you are assaulted (To include deadly force, apparently, as you mention a P9S as well as a knife), but would deny police officers the same right under the same circumstances. Where's equality under the law in that argument???? There isn't. What's left is a whole lot of hubris!

_________________________
Just when you think something is foolproof, they come out with a new and improved type of fool.

Quote:Sounds pretty lazy to me. Have you heard of petitions, or other citizen based political machinery? If you get enough like-minded folk to agree with you, you CAN change the law.

You have not challenged the facts I presented. You can pass out petitions til your blue in the face, but they don't matter one whit until a congressman introduces the legislation and votes on it.

I understand that as a public servant, you must subscribe to the fantasy that the government you serve is responsive to the needs of the individual. But it is a lie. It is a lie you have to believe, but a lie nonetheless.

Quote:What have you done to make society a better place?and I'm not speaking of using your verbal abilities to impart your opinions/ideas to the unwashed masses.

What actual services have you provided to society that have impacted in a meaningful way (that have served others, not yourself)?

What sacrifices have you made? to help others.

I have listed mine, would you please list yours?

Let's make this real easy and say that I've never had a job, never helped anyone, never joined the Elks club and am living under a bridge. Feel free to make any insult you like at this point.

Now let's get back to the topic.

Quote:have you ever been arrested and what for?

I have been arrested many times... probably several hundred times... mostly on city streets and airports.

Remember, the definition of an arrest is "to bring to a stop." That's why, when someone's heart stops, it is called a cardiac "arrest." Every time that a citizen is stopped, an arrest occurs... regardless of the lame double-talk spewed by attorneys and judges. If it is done without a lawful warrant, it is a felony and the person committing the felony should face charges.

The English language is clear. If you stop someone, you have made an arrest.

However, what I think you are asking is if I've ever been in a prison or been convicted by the government of a regulatory violation against the state. The answer is no.

Quote:You have not challenged the facts I presented. You can pass out petitions til your blue in the face, but they don't matter one whit until a congressman introduces the legislation and votes on it.

Ugh. Are your arguments so conceptually weak that you must constantly resort to sematics, sopwith? Yes - TECHNICALLY speaking, the lawmaker must introduce the legislation on behalf of the people. My point, which you *WILLFULLY IGNORE*, is that if you get enough people to go along with you at the grass-roots level, you can create enough political momentum to get a law passed (or repealed) in your favor.

You are simply too lazy or apathetic to do so.

"The people get the government they deserve."

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Quote:It appears you reserve the right to respond with the degree of force you deem necessary if you are assaulted (To include deadly force, apparently, as you mention a P9S as well as a knife), but would deny police officers the same right under the same circumstances.

No, I would not deny a police officer the same right to defend himself. However, the scenario that started this thread hardly qualifies as "self defense." Now, let's take stock for a moment of the type of responses offered here...

One officer suggested that I'd never done anything to help humanity.

Another implied that I had a prison record.

Another says I'm too lazy to take part in any effort to change a law (not sure how he knows this).

And now you say that I want to deny police the right to self defense.

You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. I guess it goes with being a police officer... your first reaction is to accuse someone. None of you have the slightest clue who I am or the first thing about me, yet instead of addressing the topic you immediately launch into a tidal wave of personal accusations without ever once addressing the topic. The thread now bears no resemblance to its origin and this response, like nearly all others before it, will result in another tsunami of accusations.

Quote:My point, which you *WILLFULLY IGNORE*, is that if you get enough people to go along with you at the grass-roots level, you can create enough political momentum to get a law passed (or repealed) in your favor.

Have you ever done this? If so, which law did you get passed or repealed?

I did, in fact, specifically address your suggestion that I "change the law." I explained in detail the precise process which had to occur in order for the change to take effect, and I explained in detail the extent of an individual's capacity to affect government law.

You responded with generalities, accusations and insults, based on your false presumptions that the undefined strategies you suggest are effective and that I have not yet tried them.

The simple fact is that no matter how overwhelming the evidence to the contrary, you MUST believe the myth that any single individual can change any law through their own efforts. Failure to believe that myth demonstrates that you are forcing law upon an unwilling people in return for money. Rather than consider that possibility, you will believe what you must believe in order to look in the mirror every morning and attack anyone who suggests otherwise.

Quote:You are simply too lazy or apathetic to do so.

And now - despite the fact that you have no remote idea of my political history - you have determined that I am "lazy" and "apathetic."

Honestly... are you capable of carrying on a discussion without insults and accusations?

No sop, you should be ashamed of yourself. You have done little but whine about the state of things in the government (and I am not arguing that there aren't problems). But when others attempt to give you THEIR side or offer solutions, you write them off as liars or criminals.

You are making just as many assumptions, my friend.

Not all police are the enemy.

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Have you ever done this? If so, which law did you get passed or repealed?

Hell no. I am too lazy and apathetic.

Quote:I did, in fact, specifically address your suggestion that I "change the law." I explained in detail the precise process which had to occur in order for the change to take effect, and I explained in detail the extent of an individual's capacity to affect government law.

No you didn't. You tiredly resorted to sematics, like below:

Quote:The simple fact is that no matter how overwhelming the evidence to the contrary, you MUST believe the myth that any single individual can change any law through their own efforts. Failure to believe that myth demonstrates that you are forcing law upon an unwilling people in return for money. Rather than consider that possibility, you will believe what you must believe in order to look in the mirror every morning and attack anyone who suggests otherwise.

Exactly what I'm talking about. You are hung up on on ONE PERSON effecting everything by themself. This is not how democracy works. You CAN individually change the minds of other people, creating a "tsunami" of political will to create change in the direction that you wish. This is how motorcycle helmet laws were changed in the USA, for example. I am not writing of foggy theories - it can happen if YOU create a start point and see it through.

Your semantic "single individual can change any law through their own efforts" is called a monarchy, and this country was founded in large part to get away from that type of thinking.

See? I can play semantics, too.

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

sopwith, you asked for it, you got it. That's just the tip of the iceberg. In particular, pay attention to Article 92 of the UCMJ, as any post regulation or unit directive falls under that. There is more than you could imagine, and I'm military, not LE. I train to fight wars, not try cases. You do expect too much for me to know and interpret all that when I'm combat arms.

Quote:...And now you say that I want to deny police the right to self defense.

You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. I guess it goes with being a police officer... your first reaction is to accuse someone. None of you have the slightest clue who I am or the first thing about me, yet instead of addressing the topic you immediately launch into a tidal wave of personal accusations without ever once addressing the topic. The thread now bears no resemblance to its origin and this response, like nearly all others before it, will result in another tsunami of accusations.

What a disgrace. And we wonder why Americans don't trust police?

You know, you just proved my point, that you hold yourself above what you demand of others. Talk of accusing without having a clue!!!!!For your information, I am not a police officer. I don't have a dog in this fight and was merely following an interesting discussion. I even thought that some of your ideas had merit. That's still true, but I now believe you have a personal problem with law enforcement, and your logic is flawed.

_________________________
Just when you think something is foolproof, they come out with a new and improved type of fool.

Quote:For your information, I am not a police officer. I don't have a dog in this fight and was merely following an interesting discussion. I even thought that some of your ideas had merit. That's still true, but I now believe you have a personal problem with law enforcement, and your logic is flawed.

IOW, you're not denying that your first reaction was an accusation... you're merely debating what occupation you held when you made it.

Yes sopwith, I did. I also explained the context in which I made that comment. Your insistance on using semantics and being pedantic is quite tiresome. YOU as an individual must affect OTHER INDIVIDUALS in large enough numbers to create political change. I have never said anything else. It is not "paying off" anyone - it is the political (democratic) process. I therefore (pedantically) assume you wish to be king and rule unilaterally, since the will of the people means nothing to you.

Quote:Motorcycle laws were changed when insurance companies and helmet manufacturers bought off legislators with lobbyists and campaign contributions.

So when political change occurs that you do not agree with, then the people must be criminals? Very paranoid of you. And I will ask again, since you reject all other solutions and opinions. What would YOU do to change the system, since you find so much fault with it? Do YOU have any suggestions, or are you simply going to whine and cry about it?

_________________________"In case you ever wondered what it's like to be knocked out, it's like waking up from a nightmare only to discover it wasn't a dream." -Forrest Griffin

Quote:For your information, I am not a police officer. I don't have a dog in this fight and was merely following an interesting discussion. I even thought that some of your ideas had merit. That's still true, but I now believe you have a personal problem with law enforcement, and your logic is flawed.

IOW, you're not denying that your first reaction was an accusation... you're merely debating what occupation you held when you made it.

This thread has degenerated from a discussion of the issue to a pi$$ing contest, sopwith against the world. I'm outta here. Pity, it started out interestingly.

_________________________
Just when you think something is foolproof, they come out with a new and improved type of fool.

Quote: Is that too much to ask of a public servant? Should the public not expect you to know the legal code that you claim to enforce?

You complain about people making accusations and personal attacks with out knowing the facts or you, well i hate to tell you this but Bushi isn't a LEO, he's in the Army. Get your facts straight.

Quote: Hey, I know... how 'bout a few false assumptions and cheap verbal shots instead of addressing the topic?

Your not addressing the "topic" either, your arguing semantics and misinterpretations of the government and the legal system. You want to talk about the "topic"? OK. The individual was signaled by police to stop his vehicle and he "made a choice" to refuse. His refusal was a felony offense and held the possibility of placing his life, the lives of his passengers, the lives of innocent pedestrians and the lives of LEOs at risk. It's known through training and EXPERIENCE that people who run from the police are doing so because they are guilty of other crimes, crimes that are unknown to the officers at that time. Because the officers don't know what these crimes may be they must approach the incident with the assumption that the individual is dangerous (worst case scenario). We don't know what actions prompted the police to use a taser but the events building up to the moment contact was made with the individual are contributing factors.

Quote: You will never "have to" taze anyone. You have to breath. You have to have water. You have to have a heartbeat. You do not "have to" taze anyone.

This is where you are wrong. You see your position is that police have a "choice" and it’s a matter of accepting the consequences. Well you don't HAVE to breathe or have water. You can choose to not drink or restrict your breathing if you accept the consequences, death. Life is all about choices, good ones and bad ones. Your ideals of anarchy don't float. Feel free to name a single society that exists and is successful in its existence with your ideals.

Quote: You have the ability to simply walk away; it is your choice. Obviously, this could cost you your job or your next promotion but it remains your duty nonetheless.

Basically what you are saying is if the police attempt to arrest a man that is wanted for several murders and that man passively resists the cops should simply walk away and allow a murderer to walk away? How is that serving the public? LEOs "service" to the public isn't to do what the individuals want when they want it. It's to put there life on the line to protect innocent people from others who have made the "choice" to commit crimes against others.

Quote: Greater still is your duty to do what is right regardless of what any law or bureaucrat says. If the state orders you to assault someone who has not harmed the life or property of another, then integrity, decency and human morality demand that you disobey the order.

Criminals are often going to try and shift the focus of their crime off them and onto another. If a person has done nothing wrong they have no reason to not cooperate with police. There are some bad apples out there and its unfortunate but police don't randomly stop people and the state doesn't give police the right to "assault" people. Whether you choose to believe it or not there are checks and balances in place to try and ensure that officers are performing their duties in the correct manor. If you have probable cause to detain an individual and that person resists, even passively, the officer has a responsibility to use force to detain that person. That responsibility is initially to the department but ultimately that responsibility is to the public they are sworn to protect.

Quote: No, you do not. You can simply walk away. Their resistance is not an aggressive action against you. Resisting arrest is, by definition, a defensive action.

There is this thing called justifications for deadly force. in those justifications it states an officer may use deadly force in self defense, defense of others and serious offenses against persons. Not even referring to deadly force, if an individual is resisting whether passively or actively they are taking an action against an officer impeding their ability to do their job of protecting the public which is against the law in itself. Therefore the officer has the right to use the minimum amount of force needed to restrain the individual. They don't have to be physically attacking the officer for them to be able to use force.

Quote: No human being could ever have a "right" to initiate force or violence against another. Rights are granted by God. The ability to use force without fear of retribution is granted by the state.

This is the problem, police aren't initiating force. They are reacting to the individual they are attempting to detain. I could understand your point if a cop just randomly approached someone on the street for no reason and tried to put them in cuffs, then yes that person has the right to resist. That isn't what this discussion is about. You would like us to believe that anyone regardless of what they have done, what law they have broken, has the right to refuse detention provided they aren't aggressively resisting the police.

Quote: Never confuse to the two.

I think you may be the one confused as it seems you don't understand that society has rules and those rules must be upheld or society will collapse. Your misinterpretations of the Bill of Rights and the Constitution have you rambling about things you don't seem to have much if any relevant knowledge of.

You can side bar the discussion all you want but it will do nothing for your credibility or you impact on the discussion. If you "don't care" what others feel about your credibility then there is no reason for you to be participating in this discussion other than trolling. Unlike you i have no desire to hide behind the anonymity of the internet. I'll be more than happy to tell you exactly who i am, my age, background or any other information you feel relevant to the discussion. I will tell you up front that i am a member of military police, i do know a great deal about the laws and regulations i am held to uphold though i will easily admit that i have not committed everything to memory. That is NOT our job contrary to your belief. Additionally if i'm confronted with an individual whom i feel can over power me in an attempt to apprehend them alone you can rest assured that i will OC them in a heartbeat if they are resistant rather than take an ASP to them or worse.

You have some distorted views of law enforcement and government in general and i'm sure nothing anyone says here will sway those views. Feel free to continue rambling though, it's entertaining.

_________________________
Enjoy life while you can, you never know when things will change.

OK, sopwith, in regards to right to use force. I'm rolling down the streets of Baghdad and a terrorist starts firing at me. You're saying I don't have the right to fire back, in order to preserve my life, the lives of my battle buddies, or the lives of the innocent Iraqi civilians on the street?

Second, I am a Soldier, not a lawyer. A cop is a cop, not a lawyer. LE agencies and the military have legal divisions for that reason. We train in regards to things such as use of force and ROE, but playing lawyer is not our primary mission. Protecting and defending people is our mission.

And be careful about how you address the issue with lane, I believe he is military police, which means he can be LE or combat arms at any time.

I believe that sop feels that the public can generally police itself and should be free to do so without law enforcement keeping order. This is a popular belief held by those who don't understand the rationality of what law enforcement sometimes is compelled to do.

The criminal justice system has the added burden of attempting to enlighten the public as to what they can do, must do and what the consequences are for everyone if they violate the oath they follow, and the risks involved even if they do their jobs. It is a complex issue that depends largely upon your point of reference.

BTW: Officers were cleared of any wrong doing by both the State Attorneys Office and the Sheriff's Office Internal Review in this case.

In this case, the official cause of death was listed as drowning due in part to the officer being stuck in the mud and unable to get close to the suspect during the taser cycle. Contributing factors were listed as asthma, extreme exertion, lack of swimming ability and cocaine use.